Jack Clark v. Albert Pujols Rhubarb Proceeds

     CLAYTON, Mo. (CN) - Attorneys for former baseball star Jack Clark say Albert Pujols' defamation lawsuit against him should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
     Pujols sued Clark, now a radio host, in October, after Clark accused Pujols, of the Anaheim Angels, of being "a juicer" on his St. Louis radio show.
     Pujols says that comment and others were defamatory: that they claim that Pujols, who signed a 10-year contract worth more than $250 million with the Angels in December 2011, used steroids.
     Clark was fired by his radio station shortly after the comment; the station is not a party to the lawsuit.
     The latest motion, filed by Clark's attorney Albert Watkins in St. Louis County Court on Monday, claims Pujols' lawsuit fails to prove that Clark defamed him.
     It claims that the presumably pejorative terms juicer and PED (commonly used to mean performance-enhancing drug) have a multitude of meanings.
     "Plaintiff's petition fails to demonstrate that the juicer comment is defamatory, in that the term 'juicer' is subject to a variety of meanings, including a heavy or habitual drinker of alcohol or, in its most innocent sense, one who liquefies fruit and fruit pulp for oral consumption," the motion states.
     "Plaintiff's petition fails to demonstrate that the worked him out comment contains defamatory language, in that the comment is overtly vague and makes no inference or suggestion of illegal drug use by plaintiff.
     "Plaintiff's petition fails to demonstrate that the injected comment contains defamatory language, in that the comment contains defamatory language, in that the comment is overtly vague and provides no context as to what was being injected.
     "Plaintiff's petition fails to demonstrate that the showing comment contains defamatory language because the comment makes no reference to what defendant was being shown and fails to establish a connection between the content of the comment and the allegation made by plaintiff in the petition.
     "Plaintiff's petition fails to demonstrate that the PED comment contains defamatory language because the petition does not clarify the meaning of the term 'PED' as used in the comment. The term 'PED' can refer to a wide variety of substances other than the illegal substances to which the plaintiff alleges defendant was referring.
     "Plaintiff's petition fails to demonstrate that the trainer comment contains defamatory language, in that the comment fails to make any reference to illegal activity or facts reflecting negatively on plaintiff's integrity, character, good name, and standing in the community. The grainer comment merely recounts a statement made to defendant by a third party and is not accusatory in nature.
     "Plaintiff's petition fails to demonstrate that the steroid comment is defamatory because the comment is merely the recitation of a statement made to defendant by a third party, and is not an allegation by defendant of anything.
     "Plaintiff's petition fails to demonstrate that the stand by comment is defamatory, in that the comment makes no reference to illegal activity or facts reflecting negatively upon a plaintiff's integrity, character, good name, and standing in the community, but is merely defendant's commitment to stand by his previously made comments."
     The motion also seeks clarification of Pujols' name. Pujols is identified as Jose Alberto Pujols Alcantara in the lawsuit, but the motion states there is no mention of Alcantara in the suit - only Pujols.
     Alcantara presumably is Pujols' matronymic - his mother's maiden name. Use of matronymics is optional in Latin American culture.
     Pujols' attorney, Martin Singer, did not respond to a request for comment.
     At times, this case has been more entertaining than an Angels game.
     Clark's attorney, Watkins, filed a motion a couple of weeks after the defamation suit was filed, offering a settlement agreement involving dueling lie detector tests from Pujols and Clark.
     Pujols' attorney, Singer, rejected the offer a day later, calling it an absurd publicity ploy.